Leftists: you have no monopoly on the moral high ground

One of the most infuriating parts of debating anything with a Leftist is the insufferable smugness, self-satisfaction and pompous condescension that one has to endure.

This arises from the Left’s unshakeable belief that any view they hold is morally superior to any proposed alternative. Examples would include:

Taking action on climate change: surely nobody with any moral compass could possibly oppose ‘saving the planet’, could they?

Gay marriage: of course, you homophobe! Love conquers all! Yay!

Islamophilia: because… multiculti!

Refugees: let them all in, otherwise you’re just a bigoted hater.

Brexit: anyone who voted for it is just RACIST and XENOPHOBIC!!!

Because most Leftists inhabit a progressive bubble in which no alternative views are ever heard (comprising the ABC, Twitter and Fairfax), they believe that no reasonable person could possibly hold any differing view, and thus their own view must be the only morally correct one.

But this perspective is very misleading.

Many small-c conservatives in Australia (and elsewhere) would disagree with all of the above examples, and persuasive arguments can be made to claim that opposing them is in fact morally superior:

Climate change: is it morally acceptable to deny millions of people in the third world struggling in poverty access to cheap energy? Seems pretty immoral to me.

Gay marriage: why should the institution of marriage, the bedrock of society and the only family grouping that can produce and raise children, be diluted to accommodate relationships that until relatively recently would be themselves regarded as ‘immoral’ and which already have been granted equal legal status?

Islamophilia: denial of the clear fact that Islam as a political ideology is fundamentally incompatible with Western freedoms and democracy isn’t morally superior to a rational evaluation of such an ideology and its risks.

Refugees: is opening our country’s borders to all without any consideration of the consequences for the native populations really a morally justifiable position? Or is it just a feel-good gesture to prop up the Left’s constant need for self-satisfaction?

Brexit: why should a country choose to remain governed by unelected bureaucrats who are unaccountable to the population? Why should a nation put itself at risk because it no longer has control of its borders? Isn’t it immoral for a government to ignore the plight of its citizens at the expense of others?

In fact, for virtually any issue for which the Left claims moral superiority, we see that whilst there may be a superficial veneer of seeming to do good, underneath there is often a deeply immoral foundation.

The Left should stop always claiming the high ground, and the Right should stop always conceding it.

Related

In a nutshell…

“You think they make this shit up? It’s all in the book. Their f***ing book. The only book they ever read. They read it all the time. They never stop. They’re there for one reason and one reason only. To die for the caliphate and usher in a world without infidels. That’s their strategy, and it’s been that way since the 7th century.” Peter Quinn, Homeland

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.